The Earth Observatory is expanding its studies of potential earthquake damage to the city. They currently have six seismometers at different landmarks throughout the five boroughs, and this summer, they plan to place one at the arch in Washington Square Park and another in Bryant Park.

In the Battle of Fallujah, Marines swept in to take the city away from ins

urgent forces, only to have politicians pull them out — and send them right back in months later. The first and second Battles of Fallujah have entered Marine Corps lore, alongside Iwo Jima and Chapultepec.

But what many don’t know is what happened at the Battle of Najaf, which played out before the 2nd Battle of Fallujah kicked off.

An Najaf is another sacred city in Iraq. It has approximately seven square miles of cemeteries — as above, so below. Under the cemeteries are miles of catacombs, haunting places where enemy fighters could be hiding, concealed in the dark.

Though the mayor of An Najaf brokered a ceasefire between the coalition and the Mahdi Army in June 2004, this only lasted until the end of August. In July of that year, the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit took over operational command from Task Force Dragon. That’s when the fighting in the city started to escalate.

In August, the Mahdi Army attacked the 1st Battalion 4th Marines, starting a significant battle of the new Iraq War. The next days were long and drawn out, characterized by house-to-house fighting, open-street engagements, and fighting across open farm fields. For eight days, the battle raged through the city.

Much like what happened in Fallujah a few months earlier, Marines and soldiers were taking the fight to insurgents. American troops were surprised by incoming small arms fire and indirect fire. Though the enemy forces were not well trained, there was a lot of them, which compensated for their lack of real infantry tactics.

At one point, the battle swept over the city’s huge cemetery, which was the stage for some of the most intense fighting of the entire Iraq War. Surrounded by the resting dead, Marines fought against extreme numbers and both sides suffered heavy casualties. Fighting on the surface was so brutal that soldiers and Marines were also forced to fight in the catacombs below.

Fallujah was the biggest urban battle since Hue City and An Najaf saw the first tunnel fighting since Vietnam.

The end of the battle brought with it a final tally of dead and wounded. Twelve Americans were killed in action and 94 were wounded. Iraqi soldiers also saw significant losses. The numbers for the Mahdi Army, however, are far greater, with 1,500 killed in action and an unknown number wounded, estimated to be in the thousands.

The battle removed Al-Sadr and most of those loyal to him from the city. Marines began to secure their area of operations and returned to rebuilding Najaf and the surrounding region. However, some of the Mahdi Army’s militiamen stayed in the city, challenging the 1st battalion, 4th Marines at every opportunity.

Instead of their normal black militia uniforms, they now wore street clothing. This allowed them to blend into the local populace. Coalition troops could no longer differentiate between friend or foe when the streets turned to a battlefield.

Marines and soldiers at the Battle of Najaf should be proud of the accomplishment of securing the city. As time passes, they remain hopeful that Americans will know about the heroes that came out of the battle and the ones who fell there — that we never let this battle be lost to history.

Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats’ remarks came days after a group of Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Muhammad terrorists struck the Sunjuwan Military Camp in Jammu, killing seven people including six soldiers.

Coats said North Korea will be among the most volatile and confrontational weapons of mass destruction (WMD) threats to the US over the next year.

North Korea’s history of exporting ballistic missile technology to several countries, including Iran and Syria, and its assistance during Syria’s construction of a nuclear reactor — destroyed in 2007 — illustrates its willingness to proliferate dangerous technologies.

In 2017 North Korea, for the second straight year, conducted a large number of ballistic missile tests, including its first Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) tests.

Pyongyang is committed to developing a long-range, nuclear-armed missile that is capable of posing a direct threat to the United States.

It also conducted its sixth and highest yield nuclear test to date.

We assess that North Korea has a longstanding Biological Weapons (BW) capability and biotechnology infrastructure that could support a BW programme. We also assess that North Korea has a Chemical Weapons (CW) programme and probably could employ these agents by modifying conventional munitions or with unconventional, targeted methods, he said.

Coats said state efforts to modernise, develop, or acquire WMD, their delivery systems, or their underlying technologies constitute a major threat to the security of the United States, its deployed troops, and its allies.

Both state and non-state actors have already demonstrated the use of chemical weapons in Iraq and Syria.

Biological and chemical materials and technologies — almost always dual-use — move easily in the globalised economy, as do personnel with the scientific expertise to design and use them for legitimate and illegitimate purposes.

Information about the latest discoveries in the life sciences also diffuses rapidly around the globe, widening the accessibility of knowledge and tools for beneficial purposes and for potentially nefarious applications.

If Arizona faced an attack, people would only have about 15 minutes to prepare.

There are several necessities to put in an emergency bag, such as a battery or crank-powered radio, food and water for 72 hours, first-aid supplies, medications taken daily, a flashlight, and wet wipes to take any dust off the skin.

Announcements and information would come from Smith-Reeve’s emergency operations center in Phoenix.

“What we have planned for are all hazard situations,” explained Smith-Reeve. “We’ve identified in our state emergency response and recovery programs all partners that have the resources to support the community.”

On Friday, the Pentagon released its 2018 Nuclear Posture Review. Its debut demands more attention, because it announced a renewed round in the nuclear arms race, one inevitably bringing us ever closer to the unthinkable — a nuclear war of catastrophic consequences.

The review clearly seeks to calm fears about President Trump’s finger on the nuclear trigger. Ignoring the many accidents and close calls during the Cold War, the review asserts that the United States has “measures and protocols” to ensure that intercontinental ballistic missiles are “safe, secure and under constant control.” Furthermore, the Pentagon says that “any U.S. decision to employ nuclear weapons would follow a deliberative process.” Despite these assurances, the review’s plans for the nuclear arsenal and nuclear strategy should rouse alarms and spark congressional hearings and public debate.

The Trump administration goes beyond President Barack Obama’s buildup by enhancing America’s “non-strategic nuclear forces,” that is, lower-yield nuclear bombs, on the order of those that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The stated rationale is to correct an imaginary Russian misperception that greater capacity in this area could give them the possibility of successfully waging a limited nuclear war. The buildup will give the president — yes, Donald Trump — nuclear weapons that are theoretically more usable in a regional conflict.

The review reaffirms the United States is ready to use nuclear weapons first in an alarmingly wide range of scenarios. It remains “the policy of the United States to retain some ambiguity regarding the precise circumstances” that might lead to a nuclear response. The United States reserves the right to unleash nuclear weapons first in “extreme circumstances” to defend the “vital interests” not only of the United States but also of its “allies and partners” — a total of some 30 countries. “Extreme circumstances,” the review states explicitly, include “significant non-nuclear attacks,” including conventional attacks on “allied or partner civilian population or infrastructure.” The United States also maintains a “portion of its nuclear forces” on daily alert, with the option of launching those forces “promptly.”

As for arms treaties, the review states that the United States will continue to comply with the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty while refusing to sign it. The review explicitly reserves the right to resume “nuclear explosive testing” if “necessary to ensure the safety and effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.” The review admits that arms-control agreements can help “sustain strategic stability,” but concludes “further progress is difficult to envision.” The document ignores the U.N. Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which obligates the United States and other nuclear power signatories to move toward nuclear disarmament. This comes as growing tensions between Russia and the United States are beginning to unravel agreements that do exist.

In sum, the United States is building a new generation of nuclear weapons and delivery systems, will deploy more usable nuclear weapons in “forward” areas, remains committed to possible “first use” of nuclear weapons even against non-nuclear attacks in defense of 30 countries, retains missiles on active alert ready to launch, is skeptical of the possibility of any progress in arms control and is hostile to the global movement to make nuclear weapons illegal. All this as tensions with Russia and China rise, relations with North Korea remain literally explosive, and the nuclear deal with Iran stays under constant assault from the president.

Opinions newsletter
Thought-provoking opinions and commentary, in your inbox daily.
Despite numerous close calls and false alarms, the world has avoided a nuclear war since the start of the Cold War. The Nuclear Posture Review suggests that nuclear weapons make violence less likely.

In reality, the world will either find a way to get rid of nuclear weapons completely or they will eventually be used, either intentionally or by mistake. This reality deserves greater attention in the media and Congress. We need to revive momentum for reducing nuclear weapons, not for “modernizing” them. As Beatrice Fihn, who accepted the Nobel Prize on behalf of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons in 2017, stated in response to the review , “There are only two possible endings to this story: either the end of nuclear weapons or the end of us all.”